Slate's Bizbox




the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Paul Berman and Sarah Kerr

from: Paul Berman

Bush's Historic Achievement re Mexico

Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2001, at 8:11 PM ET

Dear Sarah,

A timeout from politics, as you propose, sounds infinitely alluring to me. But I see that not even you have stuck to the non-political impulse, since at the end of your letter you ask me about Mexico. And, all too politically, I will answer. I wonder what you will make of my opinion.



I think that--here goes--Bush, in spite of everything else, has achieved something historic in regard to Mexico and the Mexicans in America. It is because of a series of coincidences, I suppose. Bush appears to have stumbled into the White House in a daze about the rest of the world. But, in his Texas provincialism, he does seem to know something about Mexico.

And in Mexico's new president, Vicente Fox, Bush appears to have found someone he likes and understands. I think that Fox has an extra hundred IQ points over Bush. And yet, both presidents have entered politics from business backgrounds, both are religious, both tend to look for market solutions to social problems, and both feel an urge, in a modern businessman's fashion, to speculate about radical new approaches. They do have something in common.

Fox is an extremely idiosyncratic leader, ultra-conservative on some issues, even a little scary. Yet he is also the first Mexican political leader in all of history, so far as I know, to raise the question of Mexican workers' rights in the United States--the first leader, that is, to raise that question in a way that obliges anyone else to pay attention. And Bush has so far responded sympathetically--in some degree.

Bush has accorded Fox a measure of importance and respect, not just a formal courtesy, that no Mexican leader has ever received from the United States. And so, for the first time, the whole question of the exploitation and oppression of Mexicans in the United States--a vast question, an undiscovered continent of misery, injustice, and outright theft--has at last been opened up for exploration. Mexico has for the first time loomed as a major partner of the United States. This is immense.

I can imagine that, on this one very important question, Bush has gone a lot further than Gore would ever have gone. In his dealings with Mexico, a President Gore might have been hamstrung by mixed feelings in the Democratic Party on NAFTA. Gore might very likely have received some bad advice, too. Among the top Democratic political strategists, Stanley Greenberg, Gore's adviser, and James Carville both played a role in the Mexican election. And both men's role was to support the corrupt old dictatorial ruling party. Heroes they were not.

I've thought about applauding Bush for several months on this one issue. Couldn't do it. Personally impossible. But now that I've spent a couple of satisfactory days venting my indignant soul, I can get out my opinion of this one issue.

What do you think, Sarah? You know a lot about Mexico and its relations with the United States. You have friends in Mexico. What do you hear from them? And Vicente Fox--now there's a phenomenon. What do you make of him?

Yours,
P

from: Paul Berman

Bush's Historic Achievement re Mexico

Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2001, at 8:11 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Paul Berman is the author of A Tale of Two Utopias: The Political Journey of the Generation of 1968. Sarah Kerr is the film critic for Vogue.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


[Friday Fray Notes: Thank you Roger for an incisive discussion on Central American history, and a great line on cabs in Mexico City. A.G.Android doesn't get to the "Breakfast Table" nearly enough these days, but he kicked off a splendid thread on Stalin here. And Tartwater O'Connor got things going here by asking where Fray posters live. Hazel Motes wants to add Ayn Rand to the moratorium mentioned below. Tom R explained why that would cause consternation at Fray HQ.]


Actually, in the less than safe confines of Mexico City were several prominent independent leftists, like Victor Serge, who were bodily threatened by Stalinist thugs. There's a rumor, in fact, that Tina Modotti was murdered in the back of a taxi cab (the taxi union was Communist dominated) after she started distancing herself from her boyfriend, who had helped to arrange Trotski's murder. As for Arbenz--of course, the CIA intervention was inexcusable, but even back as far as August Sandino, the PC line was not to support nationalist leftists, but to defame them, loudly. So painting Stalin's portrait was not the wholly innocent act Kerr implies--especially as Kahlo and Rivera knew, if anybody did, who the killers of Trotsky were, and what the threat to people like Serge was about. (Serge, by coincidence, also died of a heart attack in the back of a cab in Mexico City--it wasn't a safe mode of transport for a leftist dissenter); whereas I would have to defend those champagne guzzling Manhattan stalinists, who were probably, in the fifties, not guzzling champagne at all. They were probably desperately trying to find money for bail, as they were under attack by the forces of "democracy" in this country--the forces that decided to make being a communist illegal. A little ban on opinion that would have made John Adams, the current fashionable president, very happy, since it reproduced the reasoning of the Alien and Sedition acts.

--Roger

(To reply, click here.)


Sweden and France as so egalitarian because they charge VAT at rates greater than 18% plus they have higher tax rates than the U.S. A tax heaven they are not, but the services that everyone can benefit from are superb from health care to transportation so it could very well be a good trade-off.

I also find the horror at Vincente Fox not doing anything about the two environmentalists convicted based on confessions elicited by torture to be quite so typically American. America might protect US citizens from such actions, but who do you think trained so many of the torturers in Latin America. The CIA plus its allies like Argentina have trained the worst thugs in places such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico. I am sure that we are now in the process of training all of the right-wing thugs in Columbia to torture and kill all of their left-wing "narco"-terrorists. Mexico is certainly a very nasty and unfair palce, but America is also nasty and unfair outside of the US

----Martin Kannengieser

(To reply, click here.)


[Wednesday Fray Notes: We haven't had this one for a while: A-Z suggests a moratorium on some words (including Orwellian--see also Slate's "Idea of the Day" on Monday) in the "Breakfast Table." Arthur Stock wants to add "declare a moratorium" onto the list, and, yes, big surprise, lots of Fraysters have ideas for the list.]


It's not the type of tax, but the enforcement that determines tax compliance. During the first years of the Clinton administration, the IRS stepped up its enforcement of income tax laws, and the government's return on this investment was massive. When the Republicans got hold of the Congress, they held hearings where wealthy tax cheats complained about IRS mistreatment and cut the IRS's budget. The results were what you'd expect: more wealthy Americans avoiding the law

--Andrew W. Cohen

(To reply, click here.)



I could hardly agree more with Mr. Berman's sage advice, that readers ought to learn to distinguish between reporting in the New York Times and reporting in the New York Post. When the New York Post has an axe to grind, you know it immediately; it doesn't dress up its political agenda in the guise of "objective journalism" as does the New York Times in virtually every story within its covers. With that in mind, I wonder which Mr. Berman thinks is the more dangerous: the "unserious" propaganda you can spot and immediately discount as faux-news/entertainment, or the "serious" propaganda you can't.

--Adam

(To reply, click here.)






Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Imagine if...
Hiatt | What if McCain had waged his campaign based on respect?
Editorial: Meddlesome PalinKing: The Danger of Palin Power